Eventually, we all (myself included) need to realize that there is no such thing as most of us.

just because you can afford something does not mean that you can justify buying it. Perhaps if the RX-1 was 24 or 28mm I'd be a little more tempted. When the lens comes off, i'll definitely bite.

Just been looking at some rx-1 reviews. For me I can't see why it costs $3k. The AF is still contrast detection right? Can't be all that faster than the EOS M, can it? And no removable battery?? No charger in the box? Just a USB cable? How is that useful for travel?

Quite happy knowing I have something that costs $299 and does pretty much the same thing. (Takes puctures). Full frame? So what.

Eventually, we all (myself included) need to realize that there is no such thing as most of us.

just because you can afford something does not mean that you can justify buying it. Perhaps if the RX-1 was 24 or 28mm I'd be a little more tempted. When the lens comes off, i'll definitely bite.

Just been looking at some rx-1 reviews. For me I can't see why it costs $3k. The AF is still contrast detection right? Can't be all that faster than the EOS M, can it? And no removable battery?? No charger in the box? Just a USB cable? How is that useful for travel?

Quite happy knowing I have something that costs $299 and does pretty much the same thing. (Takes puctures). Full frame? So what.

I had the RX1 and I can objectively and subjectively see why it costs $3k; the Zeiss lens has been specifically matched with that body/sensor and all within a very small, manageable form factor (albeit too small for some). After trying the EOS-M at a local store, I can confirm that the AF speed of the RX1 is noticeably faster. Is it 10x faster (at 10x the price)? Well, that's something you'd have to decide for yourself after actually trying it out. Notice how I said that I "had" the RX1? Although it is a superb little camera, it is still somewhat niche with that single 35mm, non-interchangeable focal length, and it doesn't quite match the AF speed of modern DSLRs. Therefore, I sold it. To each his own I suppose, but I've never gotten that "Wow!" factor as consistently as I did with the RX1. It was just so easy. As for its full frame sensor vs. APS-C in the EOS-M: I'm not a betting man, but if you were to slap on the 22mm f/2 STM, or even a Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZE (or 21mm f/2.8 for an almost equivalent FOV) on an EOS-M and compared it to the RX1, I'm almost positive you'd pick the latter as a more pleasing image 9/10 times. That's how good the RX1's IQ is. However, at $299 w/ an f/2 prime, add on the EF adapter for full compatibility with all of your existing Canon lenses, the EOS-M truly is a steal. So if you're looking for affirmation for your recent purchase, I'd be more than happy to give you a pat on the back; but it'd be ridiculous to disregard the RX1 simply because it is too expensive for your taste, especially if you haven't even tried it out. Both are excellent cameras for their intended purposes: the EOS-M as a pocket cam and/or backup to its much larger DSLR bretheren, and the RX1 as an IQ monster in a smaller form factor (which you pay a premium for); but neither excel in fast-paced action.

P.S. The RX1 uses the same removable battery that the RX100 does, but you have to purchase the battery charger separately.

Eventually, we all (myself included) need to realize that there is no such thing as most of us.

just because you can afford something does not mean that you can justify buying it. Perhaps if the RX-1 was 24 or 28mm I'd be a little more tempted. When the lens comes off, i'll definitely bite.

Just been looking at some rx-1 reviews. For me I can't see why it costs $3k. The AF is still contrast detection right? Can't be all that faster than the EOS M, can it? And no removable battery?? No charger in the box? Just a USB cable? How is that useful for travel?

Quite happy knowing I have something that costs $299 and does pretty much the same thing. (Takes puctures). Full frame? So what.

I'm extremly happy that I got EOS-M for $299 through BH - great little camera for still shooting.

If bigger sensor is not so much important in photography, then why not settle for 4/3 or smaller. I can't describe the feeling of holding such a small camera(RX-1) that produce stunning photos. I'm shooting with 5D III with latest L lenses and I'm still amaze with RX-1. Hope Canon will have some thing similar + be able to swap lenses.

I agree...@ $2800 Sony should include all accessories you mentioned. Removeable battery is included, not the wall charger.

If bigger sensor is not so much important in photography, then why not settle for 4/3 or smaller. I can't describe the feeling of holding such a small camera(RX-1) that produce stunning photos. I'm shooting with 5D III with latest L lenses and I'm still amaze with RX-1.

Your amazement is probably due to the fact that the RX-1 has a big sensor?

Eventually, we all (myself included) need to realize that there is no such thing as most of us.

just because you can afford something does not mean that you can justify buying it. Perhaps if the RX-1 was 24 or 28mm I'd be a little more tempted. When the lens comes off, i'll definitely bite.

Just been looking at some rx-1 reviews. For me I can't see why it costs $3k. The AF is still contrast detection right? Can't be all that faster than the EOS M, can it? And no removable battery?? No charger in the box? Just a USB cable? How is that useful for travel?

Quite happy knowing I have something that costs $299 and does pretty much the same thing. (Takes puctures). Full frame? So what.

I'm extremly happy that I got EOS-M for $299 through BH - great little camera for still shooting.

If bigger sensor is not so much important in photography, then why not settle for 4/3 or smaller. I can't describe the feeling of holding such a small camera(RX-1) that produce stunning photos. I'm shooting with 5D III with latest L lenses and I'm still amaze with RX-1. Hope Canon will have some thing similar + be able to swap lenses.

I agree...@ $2800 Sony should include all accessories you mentioned. Removeable battery is included, not the wall charger.

For me $3000 is too much for a pocket camera just so I can carry it everywhere even if it is FF, especially since it's stuck at 35mm forever.

But $300 is just fine. Bonus: it shoots great video, and can accept all my other lenses in a pinch, with the adapter. And APS-C is not too shabby to have in your pocket and not have to worry about it at all.

I'm not a betting man, but if you were to slap on the 22mm f/2 STM, or even a Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZE (or 21mm f/2.8 for an almost equivalent FOV) on an EOS-M and compared it to the RX1, I'm almost positive you'd pick the latter as a more pleasing image 9/10 times.

Out of camera at 100% on screen? Yes. After post processing and printing? Probably couldn't tell the difference except at high ISO and in a few edge cases (i.e. the Sony lens might be better in the corners wide open or better shooting into the sun or something).

I'm not knocking the Sony. If I had the disposable cash I might have one. Just being realistic about the differences I see in available images online.

I got mine today. I really like the size and feel or this camera. However, I noticed when I took mine out of the box the camera makes a slight "rattling" noise when you move it around. It sounds like something is moving or loose inside the camera. It seems to work fine.... I was wondering if this noise was normal?

All the logic about an "almost pocketable - better than P&S - can't beat getting an APS-C at this price- can use your EF lenses with a converter" finally won me over.

So I ordered it from Amazon with the 22mm. Now, given my collection, wonder if I'll just get the converter and carry my 40 2.8 or 50 for more reach (I know, no IS) or use my 24-105 for a big tele? I figure the 40 or 50 with the converter won't take up much room on a family outing. Guess I could get the 18-55 M if it is lighter and easier (understand the IQ is decent) but still thinking about the converter anyway.

Hmm.......my 100-400 with a 1.4 on the M converter yields an effective almost 900 mm "reach" (semantics again, I know). That would be very weird to handhold. That's a scary thought. Would the battery last more than 20 minutes with a crazy setup like that?

I'm not a betting man, but if you were to slap on the 22mm f/2 STM, or even a Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZE (or 21mm f/2.8 for an almost equivalent FOV) on an EOS-M and compared it to the RX1, I'm almost positive you'd pick the latter as a more pleasing image 9/10 times.

Out of camera at 100% on screen? Yes. After post processing and printing? Probably couldn't tell the difference except at high ISO and in a few edge cases (i.e. the Sony lens might be better in the corners wide open or better shooting into the sun or something).

I'm not knocking the Sony. If I had the disposable cash I might have one. Just being realistic about the differences I see in available images online.

Yeah that was my point. I'm sure the rx-1 has great IQ but would anyone be able to tell the diff in a blind test? I don't have the ef adapter or I'd test the EOS M against the 5D2 and same lens.

I'm not a betting man, but if you were to slap on the 22mm f/2 STM, or even a Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZE (or 21mm f/2.8 for an almost equivalent FOV) on an EOS-M and compared it to the RX1, I'm almost positive you'd pick the latter as a more pleasing image 9/10 times.

Out of camera at 100% on screen? Yes. After post processing and printing? Probably couldn't tell the difference except at high ISO and in a few edge cases (i.e. the Sony lens might be better in the corners wide open or better shooting into the sun or something).

I'm not knocking the Sony. If I had the disposable cash I might have one. Just being realistic about the differences I see in available images online.

Yeah that was my point. I'm sure the rx-1 has great IQ but would anyone be able to tell the diff in a blind test? I don't have the ef adapter or I'd test the EOS M against the 5D2 and same lens.

When I'm out door on a sunny day, my little Canon S100 can take amazing photos - good as 7D. However, my s100 is not so amazing when I'm indoor or at higher ISO.

BTW, it SUCKS that the M's lens adapter's price went up so much! Money in, money out.

Ah, the pleasures of the market economy: Reduce the price; increase demand; create need for more accessories; raise price on those accessories; sell accessories. Of course we will all gripe when the Mii comes out and we have to buy more!

I don't fault Canon or any of the dealers for this. It is, after all, a Capitalistic society we live in.

BTW, it SUCKS that the M's lens adapter's price went up so much! Money in, money out.

Ah, the pleasures of the market economy: Reduce the price; increase demand; create need for more accessories; raise price on those accessories; sell accessories. Of course we will all gripe when the Mii comes out and we have to buy more!

I don't fault Canon or any of the dealers for this. It is, after all, a Capitalistic society we live in.